145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29508535)
1. Design and development of a phantom for tomosynthesis with potential for automated analysis via the cloud.
Goodenough D; Levy J; Olafsdottir H; Olafsson I
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2018 May; 19(3):291-300. PubMed ID: 29508535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISATION OF FOUR DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS SYSTEMS.
Ortenzia O; Rossi R; Bertolini M; Nitrosi A; Ghetti C
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2018 Oct; 181(3):277-289. PubMed ID: 29462366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A quantitative metrology for performance characterization of five breast tomosynthesis systems based on an anthropomorphic phantom.
Ikejimba L; Lo JY; Chen Y; Oberhofer N; Kiarashi N; Samei E
Med Phys; 2016 Apr; 43(4):1627. PubMed ID: 27036562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effects on image quality of a 2D antiscatter grid in x-ray digital breast tomosynthesis: Initial experience using the dual modality (x-ray and molecular) breast tomosynthesis scanner.
Patel T; Peppard H; Williams MB
Med Phys; 2016 Apr; 43(4):1720. PubMed ID: 27036570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Quality control for digital tomosynthesis in the ECOG-ACRIN EA1151 TMIST trial.
Maki AK; Mawdsley GE; Mainprize JG; Pisano ED; Shen SZ; Alonzo-Proulx O; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2023 Dec; 50(12):7441-7461. PubMed ID: 37830895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Development of a chest digital tomosynthesis R/F system and implementation of low-dose GPU-accelerated compressed sensing (CS) image reconstruction.
Choi S; Lee H; Lee D; Choi S; Lee CL; Kwon W; Shin J; Seo CW; Kim HJ
Med Phys; 2018 May; 45(5):1871-1888. PubMed ID: 29500855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Audit of data from examination image headers collected for quality assurance in the ECOG-ACRIN EA1151 tomosynthesis mammographic imaging screening trial (TMIST).
Maki AK; Mawdsley GE; Mainprize JG; Pisano E; Shen SZ; Alonzo-Proulx O; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2023 Dec; 50(12):7427-7440. PubMed ID: 37824821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A phantom study comparing technical image quality of five breast tomosynthesis systems.
Sundell VM; Jousi M; Hukkinen K; Blanco R; Mäkelä T; Kaasalainen T
Phys Med; 2019 Jul; 63():122-130. PubMed ID: 31221403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Long-term Inter-protocol kV CBCT image quality assessment for a ring-gantry linac via automated QA approach.
Peng J; Li H; Laugeman E; Mazur T; Lam D; Li T; Sun B; Hu W; Dong L; Hugo GD; Mutic S; Cai B
Biomed Phys Eng Express; 2020 Jan; 6(1):015025. PubMed ID: 33438613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Cockmartin L; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081920. PubMed ID: 23927334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM?
Nelson JS; Wells JR; Baker JA; Samei E
Med Phys; 2016 May; 43(5):2538. PubMed ID: 27147364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Digital breast tomosynthesis: Dose and image quality assessment.
Maldera A; De Marco P; Colombo PE; Origgi D; Torresin A
Phys Med; 2017 Jan; 33():56-67. PubMed ID: 28010921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Segmented separable footprint projector for digital breast tomosynthesis and its application for subpixel reconstruction.
Zheng J; Fessler JA; Chan HP
Med Phys; 2017 Mar; 44(3):986-1001. PubMed ID: 28058719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Feasibility study of shutter scan acquisition for region of interest (ROI) digital tomosynthesis.
Kim D; Jo B; Lee D; Lee H; Choi S; Kim H; Chao Z; Choi S; Kim HJ
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2018 May; 19(3):301-309. PubMed ID: 29493082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Task-based performance analysis of FBP, SART and ML for digital breast tomosynthesis using signal CNR and Channelised Hotelling Observers.
Van de Sompel D; Brady SM; Boone J
Med Image Anal; 2011 Feb; 15(1):53-70. PubMed ID: 20713313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Breast tomosynthesis: Dosimetry and image quality assessment on phantom.
Meyblum E; Gardavaud F; Dao TH; Fournier V; Beaussart P; Pigneur F; Baranes L; Rahmouni A; Luciani A
Diagn Interv Imaging; 2015 Sep; 96(9):931-9. PubMed ID: 25908324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A quality assurance framework for the fully automated and objective evaluation of image quality in cone-beam computed tomography.
Steiding C; Kolditz D; Kalender WA
Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031901. PubMed ID: 24593719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Variations in slice sensitivity profile for various height settings in tomosynthesis imaging: Phantom study.
Kuramoto T; Morishita J; Kato T; Nakamura Y
Phys Med; 2018 Sep; 53():108-117. PubMed ID: 30241745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Multiscale bilateral filtering for improving image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Lu Y; Chan HP; Wei J; Hadjiiski LM; Samala RK
Med Phys; 2015 Jan; 42(1):182-95. PubMed ID: 25563259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Detectability comparison of simulated tumors in digital breast tomosynthesis using high-energy X-ray inline phase sensitive and commercial imaging systems.
Ghani MU; Wong MD; Omoumi FH; Zheng B; Fajardo LL; Yan A; Wu X; Liu H
Phys Med; 2018 Mar; 47():34-41. PubMed ID: 29609816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
